[Column] No, tactical nukes aren’t practical for real-world use

The North Korean nuclear program poses a threat, but President Lee Jae Myung has firmly opposed plans to provide tactical nuclear weapons to US allies in the region, according to Cho Yong-sool, a spokesperson for the People Power Party. Cho emphasized that the US Department of Defense is exploring the expansion of shorter-range tactical nuclear weapons, noting that Lee has previously voiced his opposition to deploying such weapons on the Korean Peninsula.

Cho urged a reevaluation of the possibility of the US deploying tactical nuclear weapons in Korea, given the nation's global strategy, rather than solely listening to the Korean government's wishes. The US withdrew tactical nuclear weapons from Korea in 1991, following President George H. Bush's decision to remove and destroy tactical nuclear weapons stationed around the world in response to concerns that some might end up in the hands of "rogue states" after the Soviet Union's dissolution.

Recently, Elbridge Colby, the US undersecretary of defense for policy, hinted at a renewed interest in small tactical nuclear weapons and the need for the US to maintain robust nuclear options. However, given the US' approach to deploying tactical nuclear weapons and their strategic advantages and disadvantages, the likelihood of the US reintroducing tactical nuclear weapons in Korea is slim.

In the 1990s, there were approximately 100 tactical nuclear warheads stationed with US Forces Korea, including bombs for airborne delivery and 40 nuclear shells assigned to artillery units. The US military doctrine currently assumes that tactical nuclear weapons would be dropped by aircraft, with the B61-12, a tactical nuclear weapon already deployed in Germany and other European bases, capable of being delivered by various aircraft, such as the B-2 strategic bomber and the F-35 fighter.

This bomb is designed to have a variable yield, ranging from 0.3 kilotons to 50 kilotons. The primary target would be North Korea if the US were to deploy tactical nuclear weapons on USFK bases, but this move would likely provoke a negative reaction from China and Russia. Having tactical nuclear weapons stationed on the mainland and in overseas territories, such as Guam, would provide the US with greater flexibility in responding to various regional developments.

Deploying tactical nuclear weapons on USFK bases would be redundant in terms of strategic flexibility, as strategic bombers bearing these weapons could reach the Korean Peninsula from bases in Guam within a couple of hours. The distinction between strategic and tactical nuclear weapons, which originated from geographical considerations during the Cold War era, is less relevant in the context of the Korean Peninsula.

The proximity of Seoul to the armistice line means that the city would be exposed to radioactive fallout if tactical nuclear weapons were used against North Korea. A simulation conducted by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency revealed that the detonation of a 20-kiloton nuclear bomb in the central Yongsan area of Seoul could result in around 2.75 million casualties, including 1.13 million deaths.

In the debate surrounding tactical nuclear weapons, it is essential to recognize that while strategic nuclear weapons are too destructive to be used (hence reserved for deterrence), tactical nuclear weapons, with yields between 20 and 100 kilotons, are not suitable for actual warfare. The distinction between strategic and tactical nuclear weapons is largely meaningless for Koreans, given the significant impact a 20-kiloton bomb would have on Seoul.